معرفت شناسی انگاره سنت گرایان از سنت؛ امکان یا امتناع تلفیق سنت و تجدد (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
اغلب منازعات سیاسی در ایران معاصر ذیل مواجهه سنت و تجدد قابل تبیین است. راه حل سنت گرایانی مانند احمد فردید، رضا داوری (در دوره اول فکری اش) و سید حسین نصر برای حل معادله سنت و تجدد، دفاع همه جانبه از سنت و نفی تجدد است. در ادبیات پژوهشی درباره سنت گرایان کمتر به مبانی و بیشتر به آرا و نتایج ایشان توجه شده است. هدف مقاله بررسی یکی از مبادی ایشان یعنی معرفت شناسی و پیامدهای آن است. برای تحقق این هدف از روش «مبنای رأی» استفاده شده است. پرسش این است که سنت گرایان مذکور بر چه مبنای معرفت شناسانه ای با تجدد مخالفت می کنند. با استفاده از دو مفهوم کل و مجموعه مشاهده می شود که اگر سنت چونان کلِ ثابت انگاشته شود، تلفیق سنت و تجدد امری محال خواهد بود. اما اگر به صورت مجموعه درک شود، بطوریکه بتوان جزئی را به آن افزود یا از آن کاست، تلفیق سنت و تجدد به درجاتی ممکن خواهد بود. نتیجه اینکه سنت گرایان، سنت (و مقابل آن تجدد) را کل انگاشته اند نه مجموعه و چون این کل نزد ایشان ثابت است، خواهان رفع کامل نظام تجدد و برقراری تمام نظام سنت می شوند. هرچند نصر مجالی اندک ولو مشروط برای تلفیق سنت و تجدد فراهم می کند.An Epistemology of the Traditionalist Conception of Tradition: The (Im) Possibility of Combining Tradition and Modernity
Introduction Political conflicts in contemporary Iran can largely be explained by the confrontation between tradition and modernity. To address this dichotomy, Iranian thinkers have proposed various solutions. Some fully embrace modernity while rejecting tradition entirely. Conversely, others defend tradition and adopt a hostile stance toward all aspects of modernity. A third group advocates for a middle ground, suggesting a synthesis that preserves the positive elements of both tradition and modernity while discarding their negative aspects. Despite their many differences, traditionalists such as Ahmad Fardid, Reza Davari Ardakani (in his early intellectual period), and Seyyed Hossein Nasr all reject modernity entirely in favor of tradition. They argue that the Renaissance, seen as the origin of modernity, represents a fundamental deviation from the unity of human. According to these thinkers, the modern human has elevated autonomous reason as their ultimate authority, abandoning religion as a profound source of wisdom and knowledge. In this sense, traditionalists prioritize intuitive knowledge over acquired knowledge, which they see as a product of the Modern age. They propose an epistemology that places revelation and contemplation above reason and experience, replacing modern epistemological frameworks with their preferred epistemology. The present study tried to examine the epistemological foundations of Iranian traditionalists, specifically Ahmad Fardid, Reza Davari Ardakani, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. It seems that their defense of tradition in its entirety and their outright rejection of modernity are rooted in specific epistemological principles. These foundational ideas shape their stance on the interplay between tradition and modernity. In this respect, this study aimed to examine the epistemological foundations of Iranian traditionalists, as well as their broader implications. First, the analysis intended to clarify the theory of knowledge serving as the basis for traditionalist perspectives and conclusions. Second, it went on to see how the very theory of knowledge influences the confrontation between tradition and modernity. The main research question is: What epistemological foundations underlie the traditionalists’ defense of tradition and their rejection of modernity?Literature ReviewThe literature on Iranian intellectuals, particularly traditionalists, has explored their ideas from various perspectives. However, it appears that much of this research focuses more on the opinions and outcomes of traditionalist thought rather than their underlying principles. In other words, Iranian scholars in the field of intellectual history have often overlooked or easily downplayed the foundational aspects of traditionalists, including their epistemologies. At best, these studies only touch briefly on the desirable epistemologies of Iranian traditionalists. In contrast, the current study delved deeper into the epistemological foundations of traditionalists, specifically Ahmad Fardid, Reza Davari Ardakani, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr.Materials and MethodsThe present study employed ratio decidendi as its method. The British liberal–conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott used this method to interpret texts of political thought. Oakeshott argued that emphasizing only the opinions and conclusions of a thinker risks marginalizing other aspects of their work, likely leading to misinterpretation. He applied the method to interpret the works of Bentham and Hobbes. According to Oakeshott, some researchers view Bentham as a great critical thinker simply because of his philosophical and political predictions (i.e., his opinions and conclusions). As a result, they mistakenly portray him as a thinker going against his time. Similarly, in the case of Hobbes, some scholars focus exclusively on his view of human nature as inherently selfish, treating it as the premise of his political conclusions. However, Oakeshott, using the method of ratio decidendi, contended that Bentham was firmly a product of his era, with no groundbreaking innovations in his principles. Regarding Hobbes, Oakeshott argued that he was a radical and distinctive philosopher of his time. The notion of inherent selfishness in human nature, often attributed as Hobbes’s starting premise, was, in fact, a conclusion derived from nominalism and solipsism.Results and DiscussionUsing this method, instead of focusing on the opinions and results of the traditionalists, we examine their foundations particularly epistemology. Therefore, our question will be, on what epistemological basis do traditionalists - like Farid, Davari Ardakani and Nasr - oppose modernity and what is the consequence of this basis in solving the equation of tradition and modernity.Broadly speaking, there are two main theories of knowledge: the theory of correspondence and the theory of coherence. According to the theory of correspondence, truth is determined by its alignment with raw and fixed data—what is commonly referred to as facts. In contrast, the theory of coherence holds that truth is established when the facts belong to a larger system. Advocates of the theory of coherence emphasize a distinction between the concepts of whole and collection, arguing that reality should be understood as an integrated whole rather than as a mere collection of parts.ConclusionThe analysis of the works of Iranian traditionalists revealed that their epistemology aligns closely with the theory of coherence. They perceive phenomena, including tradition and modernity, as integrated wholes rather than as mere collections of parts. Based on this perspective, it can be argued that if tradition is regarded as a fixed whole, it will be impossible to combine tradition and modernity. However, if tradition is understood as a collection—where parts can be added or removed—the possibility of combining tradition and modernity emerges to some extent. The traditionalists in question view both tradition and modernity as fixed, unchangeable wholes. Consequently, they advocate for the complete rejection of modernity in favor of fully restoring tradition. Nevertheless, unlike Fardid and Davari Ardakani, Nasr offers a limited, albeit conditional, opportunity to combine tradition and modernity.
تبلیغات
